Big Z did it again

lol Misorders aren't bad luck; that's called incompetence.

"I'm saying if the game isn't going the way you want, it's do to your inability to manipulate the board, not do luck. "

Humans aren't automatons. Sometimes they simply won't do what you want, no matter what.

"I take your point that in lower-quality games, luck may play a larger part, but even if a country CDs, you can still do a lot to mitigate the impact on the game. Strategy doesn't go out the window just because someone CDs."

Didn't say it didn't. Of course you can mitigate it. But luck still plays a big role.

I agree with abge that misorders shouldn't be considered bad luck for the player that entered them. However, I think you could call that good luck for the other players that benefited from them.

Well, I did say that I might have been optimistic. :)

Gotta agree with yebellz. Luck plays a role, but from what I've seen observing games (because god knows I don't play anymore) and playing against MM, Babak, THM, Cachimbo, Tasnica, MKEcharlie, to name a few, the skilled players "seem" to be luckier and they consistently get "random" factors to play in their favor.

I wasn't insulting abgemacht he misinterpreted my post.

lol w/e Putin

If a player wants to get better, they should blame themselves for their poor performance.

They way to learn in anything is by doing and learning where things went wrong....

On another note, If you would like me to derail thread, Ill insult Putin

Once again the preachiest among us are tanking a conversation, it's like a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point.

"If a player wants to get better, they should blame themselves for their poor performance."

Within reason. Just like in life, you don't control everything. You should maximize the chances of success given the hand you are dealt. You can't always bluff your way to victory with a 7 and a 2.

Me,me me me, oh please can i , can i

Even if dumb luck plays a big of a role as you think it does, having that mentality does nothing to help you improve your skills. If you want to get better, you should always be looking to improve. Blaming luck is just an excuse not to improve.

I never said improvement wasn't possible. But if people are making pithy dictums about what this game comes down to, claiming luck is not relevant just isn't true.

The lesson of all this is the game cannot be reduced to a slogan.

Blaming luck is Putin's way of copping out and CDing when things dont go his way. Even if you are well versed in this game and you make perfect moves, you still might lose. To play is the only way to learn.

No, ssorenn, please go sit in the corner and have quiet time. :)

If I may do a summary of the comments thus far and add in my own analysis:

Luck does play a part.
Skills play a much bigger part.
Luck can have a relative "big" effect in any single game.
However, over the long run of dozens of games or more, as the number of games gets bigger, statistically luck should have a much reduced effect because it is random and it is skills that have the greatest effect.

Fair enough?

Good I'm glad the Moral Majority made sure ad hominems and mockery would be involved. Good show, fellas.

Big Z, I'd say ok but i dont think you would believe me, and i dont like to LIE, So NO

(but i will leave it alone) :0)

Well, I tend to disagree with the whole wait and see 1901 thing. While I do believe that you shouldn't just jump into attack X mode, it is best to have a plan A for each country, though it is best to keep quiet on that. Start off collecting info, your neighbors will be an immediate concern, but it is best to know how the "other" sphere is going to work out, and have an ally for a potential long term draw, so definitely talk to the powers furthest from you. (i.e talk to EVERYONE), and try to spread a little discord, usually the winner is in the sphere that is closed out first. After you have a read on everyone's plans, make a plan yourself (hopefully your Plan A but wil depend on the players around you), make sure you have at least one ally next to you (mostly making a good argument that appeals to them, based upon intelligence) and strike quick and powerfully. During the early stage, try to gain slightly more SCs than your partner, and more importantly, make sure that at the least you have a good defense against them, unless they are a care bear, leaving yourself open makes you a tasty morsel. Next comes the choice, stab or press on with your partner. This mostly depends on the path of least resistance, so if your partner is bigger,don't attack him alone, but if you can win (quickly) do it. Whichever you do, make sure when the dist settles you have a tactical advantage, and sweep up the last few SCs. I hope this makes sense, and good luck in furture games.

Ultimately this game is about entertainment. This would be useful for noobies to keep in mind. Too many of the 'top players' take this game way too seriously.

*dust

Here are some ideas:

1. Understand how the game mechanics work. You will have a difficult time figuring out your own orders, let alone persuading others to follow your suggestions, if you don't have a solid understanding of how different move possibilities will resolve. The better your understanding of how the mechanics work, the more creative you can be in thinking of move combinations to accomplish your tactical goals.

2. Always talk. Don't burn bridges. Be likable. The first two are fully under your control; the last, you do the best you can. There is no excuse for not talking to everyone every phase. I concede that I don't always do so, but I recognize it's just laziness when I don't. There's always something to talk about, even if you're on the other side of the world. Sometimes I will "make the rounds" in a game and check: is the last message with each power from me rather than from the other power? If the last wasn't from me, I should send a message. Even if it was from me, if it has been a while with no response, I should send a follow up.

3. Think about what is best from the perspective of each of the other powers. Then figure out how you can convince the other powers that what is best for them matches what you're looking for. If they're too far apart, you don't want to lose credibility by suggesting something ridiculous. If what you're looking for doesn't match what is best for the power you're talking to, consider revising your own expectations to something more within reach.

4. The board doesn't lie. Everyone is trying to manipulate you, often through deception. The actual position of the units, the orders entered, and the moves available in the coming phase give you a lot of information and guidance. Trust what you see on the board more than what people are telling you. (Of course, more sophisticated players will take it to the next level by trying to make the board look differently than what's really going on.)

"Ultimately this game is about entertainment. This would be useful for noobies to keep in mind. Too many of the 'top players' take this game way too seriously.",

This can be quite serious for a lot of people, as the same with chess. Its quite exillerating to out mind fuck someone and win. Its a game yes, and some people should just treat is as such, but for a lot of people here(i am assuming) its about winning

@THM

#3 is very good advice that I don't think has been mentioned yet. This can also help you defend against possible attacks.

First thing I would do is read up on opening strategy and stalemate lines. (Opening strategy is self-explanatory; a "stalemate line" is a series of unit positions and orders that cannot be breached by an attack from the outside, and protects enough centers on the inside to sustain itself.) In a lot of respects the literature base on Diplomacy is lacking, but in these two respects it isn't, and you can figure out the rest from that with some practice. Figure out the major "flash points" on the board -- where the early centers are and what provinces are contested early -- and figure out what centers you're probably going to need to win the game, and what centers are improbable to bank on acquiring to win.

Resource for opening strategy and stalemate lines:
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy.htm

For an easy example, let's look at Turkey.
Early centers: Balkans
Flash point: Black Sea
These imply that your press with Austria and Russia should be a top priority. All three of you compete for Balkan centers (primarily Austria/Turkey), and Russia threatens the Black Sea from the beginning.
Stalemate lines: The two major ones of note for Turkey run southwest-northeast, and east-west. There are several minor variations on each, but the primary takeaway is that for Turkey, the three Turkish centers, the three Austrian centers, the three Italian centers, the four Balkan centers, and Tunisia are on your side. That's fourteen. From there you'll have to add four from the following: four Russian centers, Berlin, Munich, Marseilles, Spain, Portugal. What this implies is that you have a significant interest in the development of the Mediterranean, and that your diplomacy with Italy becomes paramount as well.

So at this point we've identified three powers whose actions will determine your fate very directly: Russia, Austria, Italy. Now you start writing your press. Using your newfound understanding of the opening game from those strategy articles, you'll want to create a specific plan for 1901 that leaves you at least one, and ideally two, valid paths of development. One example (though it's not one I necessarily recommend) is trying to acquire Greece in 1901. This will require you to negotiate with Austria to convince him to allow you to take Greece (as Austria is capable of taking it himself by force). Let's say hypothetically that you're very successful in negotiating this, and as a result Austria decided to go for Romania himself instead of Greece. With two armies adjacent to Serbia you have a strong path for expansion through Austrian territory, OR with Russia missing out on the Romania build you have a good chance of taking the Black Sea while Russia's distracted with Austria, giving you an opening to invade Russia. By leaving yourself multiple valid options you make sure that if something goes wrong in negotiations with your preferred ally, you're still in a position to work with someone else.

So how do you determine your preferred ally? Talk in specific terms, make concrete proposals, and measure your neighbors' reactions. Back to our Turkey example, we already have one great specific point of discussion: the Black Sea, with Russia. With Austria we have another: how to split the four Balkan neutral centers. (This extends to Russia as well, but realistically that discussion should always be in context of taking down Austria; you don't actually want to "split" the Balkan centers with Russia, so much as you want to stake a claim to most of them yourself, and leave Romania to Russia.) If you read the opening strategy articles, you know that Italy has a popular anti-Turkish opening called the Lepanto; and you also know that Italy taking Tunisia with a fleet, instead of convoying the army there, would interfere with the tempo of the Lepanto attack (since it would delay him for a turn). How Italy takes Tunisia then becomes another point of discussion. Finally, by putting yourself in your neighbors' shoes, you can identify several other flash points that provide discussion fodder for those neighbors and for more distant powers; with Turkey this is typically Sweden (a neutral Russia likes to get, but which Germany can deny him), how England plans to take Norway (a fleet is noncommittal, an army tends to signal a more concentrated effort to take centers in Scandinavia and possibly signals an attack on Russia proper), Galicia (a major point of discussion for Austria and Russia; it's the equivalent of the Black Sea for you and Russia), Trieste/Tyrolia (see above but replace Russia with Italy).

Ask about all these things with the appropriate powers, and ask specific questions that require a more committed, meaningful answer. Taking Galicia as the example from above, here are two different ways to ask about it.
1. "What are your plans for Galicia this turn[/year/game]?"
2. "Are you willing to move your army in [Vienna/Warsaw] to Galicia this turn, and if so are you willing to try attacking [Warsaw/Romania/Ukraine/Vienna/Budapest] in the fall?"
Notice how the second question requires not only a "yes" or "no" answer to both questions, but also shows a development of the other player's ideas on Galicia into a greater plan for an attack on a neighboring country. This requires a lot more thought to answer than the empty "What are your plans for X?" question that so many players use, and it makes people commit to concrete positions and puts their credibility on the line. That means the other players are going to be more thoughtful in their responses and are more likely to be honest with you. And of course, be mindful of quid pro quo -- try to be open, honest and specific in your own proposals and answers to questions. On balance, the players who are most open in their intentions and specific in their early negotiations are the best allies to choose, because even if they do ultimately end up betraying you, they don't leave room for ambiguity in the relationship when they do it. A diplomatic relationship established on open communication and specific proposals lends itself to transparent expectations about each member's actions.

I think that's probably a good enough starting point; you'll get an intuitive feel for the rest of the game with experience. Some other pointers:

1. Put yourself in others' positions when you go to make a deal, and ask yourself if it's the best deal for them. If there's something clearly better available, send the deal out as a "what do you think of this" kind of offer to gauge the other player's reaction, but don't expect it to get accepted, and be very suspicious if it does. If the question is ambiguous or if your deal is the best deal for them, try to sell it to them over several exchanges of press. You're not always going to be in a position to make the best offer, and people don't always accept what appears to be the best offer (or what, in retrospect, was the best offer), but as long as you're not selling something obviously bad you have a chance to succeed - and even if you are selling something obviously bad, you can learn a lot about the player by seeing their reaction. (After all, if it's so obviously bad that they should never accept it, the reaction should be a quick and firm rejection, no?)

2. Related to the above, put yourself in the other player's situation and ask what you would do if you replaced in for them right then and there. If the answer is different from what you want them to do, acknowledge this reality to yourself immediately, ask yourself why it's different, and then see what you can do about that. If you can't justify to yourself that a given player should do what you want them to do, then over the long run, you'll never be able to justify it to that player, either.

3. Always be polite! And within reason be willing to give detailed explanations for why you went about doing a particular thing, or why you think your plan is good. People have very divergent attitudes toward this game that has nothing to do with player competency or interpersonal interactions; reasonable people can differ wildly in this game, given how social it is, and so it's always important to remain level-headed and explain yourself where prompted (and even where not, particularly if you're selling someone on a plan of action).

4. As an extension of #3: be patient whenever a stab occurs, whether as the perpetrator or the victim. If you're the victim, it's very tempting to get angry and yell at the person that stabbed you, and it's very easy to get carried away and say something particularly hurtful. But this is the last thing you want to do! If you've been stabbed successfully, your options are likely very few; and while it might seem unlikely that you can persuade whoever stabbed you to back off and reassess their position, you'll do yourself no favors by calling them an idiot or saying they clearly don't understand how to play the game. Most players stab with an at least superficially-sound reason, and even if it turns out to be a poor play, they didn't do it willy-nilly. They thought long and hard about it and decided it was the best option. Respect that and respect their intelligence and you'll go a long way toward being able to get out of bad situations. And on the dealing end, remember that people are gonna get mad as hell when you stab them. They'll probably say some of the things I mentioned above. But for the same reason that you shouldn't say these things as the victim, you should ignore them as the perpetrator: you don't want to let some petty words in a heated exchange close off a legitimate opportunity for later cooperation.

5. Fuck the "talk to everybody" rule. Talking to everyone is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. The real rule of thumb when writing press is "don't say something without a reason." The idea behind talking to everyone early and often is twofold: one, to build rapport for later cooperation; and two, to get information you wouldn't otherwise get that could help you out. In my experience, these are both terribly overrated. You should absolutely be talking to more distant powers about certain flash points to get a better understanding of what's going on. For example, I mentioned Sweden and Norway as Turkey earlier in this post; you want to talk to England and Germany early and often, because their opening plans directly affect Russia, and so affect you by proxy. But talking to, say, France? Very likely not necessary to start. France could give you an added insight into the west if you're really curious, but it's very very likely not going to be anything relevant that you couldn't get from England or Germany. And talking "to build rapport" is nice from a social aspect and something you should do if you feel like it, but small talk doesn't seriously improve your chances of convincing someone to work with you later. I would say that, unless you enjoy the small talk with other players (which is totally fine btw!), you're wasting your time over 90% of the time that you talk to players for no other reason than to "build rapport." That's done by making deals and following through on them.

6. Always start by blaming yourself for any shortcomings in a game. As you work your way through your myriad failures in a given game, you can scratch off dumb-luck occurrences like "failed to capitalize on an untimely CD," but by starting off from the vantage point that everything that you did wrong in a game is your fault and writing off things that aren't after further reflection, you'll be able to identify long-term trends with which you struggle. It's true that, despite the deterministic mechanics of Diplomacy (players control all aspects of the game), there's a lot of things beyond your individual control, and so in a one-off game the outcome is driven by chance opportunity to a more significant degree than you might hope. But over the long run, certain players are consistently good and others are consistently bad, far more than mere chance would ever allow for. By blaming yourself for every negative outcome you can identify common trends in your play that lead to your defeat and work to improve them.


Sorry for the somewhat disjointed flow of this post, there's a lot of stuff to share and I think it's all helpful. Good luck in your games! :)

Well, THM gave the short version, and PE gave the long version. Here's something I posted a while back in a SoW thread that might be relevant, since you're asking about how to survive the opening. I think this is actually the strongest part of my game (I'm very rarely the odd one out in my region), while the midgame is the weakest.

Somebody introduced the three skills of the game earlier in the thread: diplomacy, tactics, and strategy. I’m going to expand on that a bit here. Diplomacy and tactics must always serve strategy. It doesn’t matter how good you are at convincing others to do things your way and figuring out their moves if it isn’t moving you closer to a win. Likewise, tactics can give you effective turns, but you need a strategy to string those turns together towards a win.

The relative weight of each skill also changes throughout the game. While there are many ways to divide games into opening, mid-game, and end-game, I prefer to think of the opening as the phase where diplomacy has the most effect on the game. As alliances emerge and nations rise or fall, the game moves into the mid-game, where players must make strategic decisions – stabbing an ally, which centers and areas of the board to prioritize, or what builds to make, for example. The strategic decisions in the mid-game are often what separates great players from good players, as they allow great players to turn bad positions into draws and good positions into wins. Finally, in the end-game, players have generally settled into a strategy, and as stalemate lines emerge, tactical decisions become ascendant. Of course, this does not mean that any of the skills can be ignored at any stage of the game, only that certain stages of the game tend to emphasize certain skills. After all, even the earliest moves must be made with a strategy, however fluid, in mind, and mediocre or poor tactics in the mid-game will get you eliminated so that you never make it to the end-game!

As the players write their opening presses, then, I’d like to discuss some components of effective 1901 presses. In Spring 1901, your diplomacy needs to give you both short- and long-term options for alliances and growth. With your direct neighbors, the goal is to either get them to leave you alone and head the other direction, with plans to work together later, or to negotiate an agreement to split up a third neighbor quickly and then move onto secondary targets. With cross-board powers, such as England and Turkey, there may still be opportunities for direct cooperation, but even if that’s not the route you’re going in the opening, you want to set up a relationship that gives you insight into the moves and motivations of the other players as well as building relationships with all possible allies in the future. If you do this right, every other power on the board should believe that you are the ideal long-term partner, and at least a few of them should be thinking of you as their primary partner. Let’s look at an example of how to use opening presses. These are from a game I played as Austria, in which, despite my opening presses, Italy attacked me directly and Russia was leaning towards it. However, in the Fall of 1901, I was able to, through my relationships with the other powers, hold both Italy and Russia to 0 builds while grabbing two myself. The game can be found here: gameID=122933. Let’s take a look.

My first press to Italy:
“It is essential for Italy and Austria to work together in the opening. If we fight, then Russia and Turkey will roll us up. For this first turn, I propose that we empty tri and ven. If you want to go west, that's fine, but if not, then we should come up with a plan for moving east into the Balkans, Turkey, and eventually Russia before turning west together.

Austria and Italy make very good allies as long as they have the wisdom to not go for petty stabs over tri/ven. I look forward to hearing from you and working with you.”

Note that I’m stating why it’s important for us to work together and why we would make good allies, proposing some specific moves (emptying tri/ven), describing the short- and long-term goals of our alliance, and optimistically stating that we are going to work together. Seeing as Italy opened ven-tyr, rom-ven, I probably could have elaborated more and gotten a more effective opening, but in general, I tend to send frequent, rather than long, press. I also believe it’s advantageous to get the first presses out in the game and in each turn whenever possible.

My first press to Turkey:
“Too often, Austria and Turkey default to fighting each other, which merely lets Italy and Russia pick them apart from both sides. However, the AT, while not often seen, is very powerful when done correctly, in large part because is is always unexpected. In the first year, the goal must be to deny Russia rum through moves to gal, bla, and arm in the spring and supported moves into rum and sev in the fall. Once sev and rum fall, Austria builds armies to finish off Russia while Turkey builds fleets to break into the med, Italy, and eventually Iberia. That way, the two powers have different avenues of expansion while preserving opportunities to support each other.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.”

Once again, I start with why we should work together, discuss short- and long-term goals, and specific moves. I didn’t convince Turkey to go to arm in the spring, but in the fall, he did bounce Russia out of rum while offering support for Italy into gre, convincing Italy to forgo tun and then leaving him to get bounced out of gre by my supported move. Turkey and I became game-long allies.

My first press to Russia:
“Russia and Austria make very strong allies. In the opening, we have a common enemy, and in the midgame we can help each other in the middle of the board while focusing on expanding in Scandinavia and the med.
The corner position makes Turkey a difficult nut to crack once well-established. All he has to do is sow enough discord to prevent us from working coherently, and in just a few years his position will be impenetrable. However, it is much easier to dig Turkey out of his shell in the early game if Russia and Austria work together. Ideally, out goals for the first year should be to prevent Turkey from gaining more than one build. In 1902, the goal is to take bul and either bla, arm, or both in preparation for an assault on the Turkish home centers.
As a practical matter, I would prefer that there not be a Russian army in gal after this turn, as it is next to two Austrian home centers, and it would greatly upset the citizens of Vienna if there Opera season were disturbed.”

Same principles at play here. Russia opened ambivalently towards me, then, wanted my help when Turkey bounced him in rum, but I decided to side with Turkey. In this case, I would have liked a friendlier opening, but I think I could have ended up allying with Russia if I had wanted to because of my success in getting Turkey to attack Russia.

My first press to Germany:
“Austria and Germany, surrounded by more secure and potentially hostile edge powers, must stick together diplomatically and militarily. Our first priority must be to ensure that EF and RT do not ally, as those two alliances target each of us, respectively, in their openings. Second, it is to both our benefits if Italy goes after either France or Turkey instead of me. An early Italian assault on Austria tends to result in the formation of a Juggernaut, and a Russia bloated on my home centers will quickly turn towards yours. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would steer Italy away from attacking me!
After that, there are a few possible strategies. It can be beneficial to both of us if we can persuade Russia to move mos-stp and threaten nor, as it gives you your pick of allies in Scandinavia while almost ensuring that there will not be an army in gal threatening my home centers. Perhaps you can offer to give Russia swe in return for pressure on England, or at least no pressure on me?
In the longer term, a central alliance between AIG can be very effective. One way for that to work is for AI to invade Turkey with Russian help while you invade England with French and Russian assistance. One the corner powers are crippled, IG can turn on France while AG turns on Russia.”

Same principles here again. This one was actually my longest one, as I was explaining to Germany not only what I wanted him to do and why he should do it, but also trying to coordinate our diplomacy to weaken our common enemies. Germany ended up bouncing Russia in swe, which was instrumental in my early success.

Now, let’s look at press to powers further away. First, England:
“Although we are far apart at the moment, we have some common interests. If you are interested in sending Italy towards France early, I could definitely push him that way. We also need to coordinate on Russia so that he helps our interests (instead of Germany's or Turkey's) without getting too strong.
Looking forward to hearing from you.”

Notice that I’m still stating why we should work together, if only diplomatically. Do not underestimate the effects that other powers’ strategies and diplomacy can have on your success even if they do not border you directly. I’m also hedging my bets with long-term allies here, as either he or France will probably come out of the west, and I need whichever one it is to be at least as loyal to me as he is to his local partner if I’m to succeed in the mid- and end-games.

Finally, my opening press to France:
“We are not neighbors yet, but we have many common interests. First, we need to send Italy after Turkey. If he comes successfully after one of us, it will not be long until the other is also a target. We need to convince him to move east, and then when we are both stronger, we can consider moving into the boot together.
PS I hope you enjoy the fine Viennese chocolates.”

Same principles as with England, and also proposing a specific way we can work together in the near future.